#but most people don't give a shit about the difference so fuck it both gore n guro

[nyanbinary-81]

R800 "Boundaries" — Why They Don't Work

As of March 5, 2025, @ranboolivesaysstuff made a post listing "boundaries" for R800, their VTuber model.

R800, is, functionally, Ranboo's brand, so how it is portrayed in an official capacity is reflected on Ranboo and their channel.

Allow me to repeat: R800's portrayal in an official capacity directly affects Ranboo's job.

Fandom is, as always, unofficial. While YouTubers, particularly MCYT and VTubers, are heavily intertwined with and therefore affected by fandom, a "weird' corner will rarely, if ever, reflect upon the brand. The part of fandom most likely to reflect upon the brand is the majority of fans.

So, what, according to the "boundaries" post, should the majority look like, and how does this expectation fall short?

Part 1: What Does Ranboo Say?

If you haven't read the post yourself, do so now. I will be summarizing or clipping several pieces of the post.

Essential context of this post is that it is the third reblog. The actual question, answer, and initial reblog are as follows.

This is...vague. Fans are, allegedly, allowed to do everything Ranboo has done. Nothing further. And they are to tag responsibly, or Ranboo will "go back on it" (presumably meaning setting a new "boundary" to disallow it). Additionally, Ranboo has set a criteria for "thinking something might not be ok", which is going to be different for EVERYONE.

So, according to these, which are in the "official" boundaries post, fans are expected to:

Know everything Ranboo has said about/done with R800

Abide by that and exactly that as the limit

Instinctively know when something is "too far"

and, the actually reasonable one,

Tag responsibly

"But Tumblr user nyatbinary-81," cries the strawman I'm propping up to transition into my next point, "this is just the CONTEXT! Surely the actual boundaries in the next reblog are better!"

Why, thank you, strawman I propped up to make my point! Let me put this simply: They're not.

Ranboo's R800 boundaries are, essentially, as follows:

R800 is a character, and these boundaries ONLY apply to R800/alternate versions of R800.

Suggestive/NSFW art is fine when properly tagged

"Gross Shit" (decided using your self awareness, but also explicitly includes NSFW gore and hardcore/unethical kinks that Ranboo is uncomfortable with) is not allowed

Suggestive/NSFW art involving real people, other VTubers, other media's fictional characters, Ranboo's past OCs, or self insert OCs are not okay unless both parties have consented to it

If any of these rules are broken as an honest mistake, inform the person and give them a chance to correct it, unless it's one of the rules that's obviously not okay to break, even as an honest mistake

No seriously, that's what the post says. You can check.

Part 2: NOT What That Means

Okay. To get into why this is so ridiculous. let's talk about what a boundary actually IS.

Boundaries are limits on what you will tolerate. If I tell a friend not to show me their porn, that is a boundary. If they keep doing it, they are breaking that boundary, and it is my responsibility to enforce it. If I tell a friend to stop watching porn altogether because porn makes ME uncomfortable, that is NOT a boundary. That is me attempting to control their behavior. That is a rule, and, more importantly, it is an unfair rule.

Ranboo, whether or not they understand the exact consequences of this post, is controlling fandom behavior. This type of rule is what has created so much discourse in the past. I was here. I have seen the infighting created by rules for "acceptable" behavior. I'm back in the fucking building again. This is the Internet; you will NEVER create a rule/"boundary" that works. Rules, especially vague ones like this, are how you get people doxxed.

On a similar "NOT What That Means" note, what the hell does "NSFW Gore" mean. Like, by context, you mean suggestive/pornographic gore. But gore, by definition, is Not Safe For Work. can we please remember what NSFW actually means chat. can we remember why we have the terms we do. can we say porn. otherwise we end up with the creator of genloss saying "no gore ever".

Part 3: "Gross Shit"/RPF; You Can't Just Say That???

Ranboo. Ranboo come here. Please. Listen to me. You CANNOT attempt to ban people from making "Gross Shit" about a character on the Internet. On Tumblr. You cannot stand up, call yourself queer, and denounce "hardcore/unethical kinks" as "gross" and "weird" and Unacceptable. You haven't even defined what the hell that MEANS. You are making a "morally correct" list based on how you feel and it is going to go exactly like every "morally correct" list based on feelings goes. which is BADLY. VERY VERY BADLY. You feel about "hardcore kink" the way homophobes feel about chaste queer kisses. You can't just Say This. You HAVE to examine why you have these feelings and beliefs. Please. Please. Please.

Also: People need to be fucking normal about shipping. Ranboo. Look at me. You are marketing yourself as a hot queer. You cannot just outlaw people from drawing/writing themselves making out with a hot queer person. You cannot decide that a fictional character can only be shipped with fictional characters whose creator decides shipping them is okay. That's not how this works. You do not have the power to set these kinds of rules for a public Internet space.

You ESPECIALLY cannot say, and i fucking quote,

This has...implications. "A misplaced tag isn't a reason to get all up in arms" implies there IS reason to get up in arms. "let them know in an informative way at first" implies that if they don't bow to an unfair rule, you should get up in arms. This is exactly how people get harassed and doxxed over a piece of fucking fanart. Over fictional dolls. Ranboo you are going to get people doxxed for playing tuoys.

Part 4: What Do YOU Want To See?

Can we go back to the reasonable part. Where Ranboo said to tag properly and responsibly. Can that be the entire post. Please.

Because, if you'll recall from section 2, a boundary is about interpersonal behavior. On Tumblr, your boundaries are blocked blogs and tags. If someone keeps making blogs to get past your block, they are violating a boundary you are setting. If someone leaves their gore untagged, they're violating your filtered tags and it is your responsibility to request that it be tagged, block the blog, whatever you need to do to filter it out. It is NOT your place to harass someone for properly tagged content You Don't Want To See. That's tagged. Block the tag.

It is ALSO your responsibility to tag your OWN content properly, and update your tags when one is missing/incorrect. This includes not censoring your tags, tagging common triggers, tagging gore/porn, etc.

So, Ranboo's R800 boundaries SHOULD BE as follows

You are NOT allowed to show Ranboo content of R800 including the following:

Pornographic gore

Hardcore kink

Most ship content (selfshipping, rpf, R800 x characters whose creators have not "okayed" for shipping including Ranboo's past OCs)

You are to tag these properly and responsibly, and update the tags when informed. You are NOT allowed to show this content directly to Ranboo/Ranboo moderated spaces, and are to delete it if you have and are further informed. You are NOT allowed to apply these boundaries to Ranboo, nor to any of Ranboo's other characters.

And you are, crucially, NOT to harass or doxx anyone over how they play with their fucking touys.

Can we do that?

[vinxwatches]

fallout (2024)

WARNING: i did not finish this. i didn't want to finish this. do not read or watch if you like happy stories. do not read or watch if you like the darkness in the fallout games. this show is dark in gruesome, permanently damaging ways. fuck this. the show may fucking nail the aesthetic of fallout, it doesn't get the vibe of fallout. fallout is set in a serious world where video game characters go through a video game plots in a world that's also often goofy. an equivalence would be if the mario movie had a serious burial of Luigi half way through and he just stayed dead. a clear sign that it doesn't get it.

trigger warning: gore, dismemberment of the living and dead. the dog dies.

as a big fan of fallout 4, even fallout 76, and a letsplay of Fnv this is very hype. and the references they are putting in straight is so cool to see. and damn, that's how you start a fallout. and now jus the references, seriously the vault hallways looks straight up lifted from fallout 4 (with high definition mods)

a vault having connections with a different vault? so that either is a process of kicking people the fuck out, or the evil experiment from vault tech... probably both. also love that they don't avoid the fucked up lore that really makes fallout fallout.

oh yea, this is how you start a fallout part 2, the personal angle. kind of bummed that she doesn't start with the classic bulky 10mm. and of course there's something about the protaganists family, because this is bethesda fallout (not derogatively, just perfect adaptation)

me, out loud: "ohhh, that's the pridwin, that's so cool" if you get me to talk out loud you did good. petty power politics? how very fallout of you. "i'm bringing him home". i'm very sorry but that's not how fallout works.

also loves that bethesda continues with inclusivity. Dane is nonbinary, played by a trans actor. it's so small, it plays no role (at least i find it HIGHLY unlikely that it will. nb people are just part of reality, and so they are now (finally) entering media.

the fucking junk jet made it in?

just "the ghoul". i wonder if we'll get more info on what ghouls are. i mean i know. i've probably heard more false things then there's true stuff about ghouls to know. but if you're new to fallout i think the vault is relatively obvious, and the brotherhood is pretty well explained. but the concept of a ghoul? practivally nothing outside of them being scary, can go "feral", and are weird. but it is only the first episode.

02

it wouldn't be fallout without skeletons in strange positions and/or environmental story telling. did they use fallout sound effects for the weird man drinking water? it may not be but that is diamond city. at least based of it. it looks so fallout that i can't even remember which of the places i've had a shootout in it reminds me of, it's too many.

not a fan of living gore. like fallout game gore is fine. shooting limbs of completely mindless things? fine. but not on a person, espcially not one that's then crudely taken care of. i'm way too terrified of something happening to me, it tends to roam in my mind anyways, even more so now that i've a reason to give a shit about my body, so the dismemberment of the living... ew, please, no more. at least it doesn't stick around too long (in which case why? just to be gross?)

"cyanide was the most humane product vault tech ever made"... accurate yet horrifying.

03

oh... so that's who the ghoul is. and that, well it'll create drama, and i'm curious how close it's to the story of nuka break. haven't seen that show in too long.

me, out loud, after wondering what that monster was "oh of course it was a gulper. wait, no, those are east coast, this was west coast." not really a plothole, monsters from one side often make their way to the other. harder for a water based creature. unless the same thing evolved twice.

oh, those eyes weren't just more human then expect. that thing was human... once.

the golden rule is severely lacking. don't do onto others as you'd have them to onto you. if i was into bondage and often horney how do you think it'd treat people if the golden rule was. a good rule is "treat others how they want to be treated" or "treat others how you can reasonably expect they want to be treated". the golden rule of the wasteland is pretty accurate though: "thou shalt get sidetracked by bullshit every goddamn time". this rule is, in fact, recursive.

of course the waterchip is broken. this is fallout after all.

04

ok, no, i'm done. no dismemberment of main characters. fuck you. even if she does get it back. i'm done.

[tearitar]

fic writer meme, for forfeit: 14, 17, 25 - and 7 for both blind offering & discount offering!

14. Talk about the fic’s opening scene & how you approached it

Haha, while I don't think I'm particularly good at writing opening scenes, I'm not exactly scared of it. I usually feel like I'm kicking a door in with my opening sentences. Hence, I immediately write "Drifter spends the night on Shin's ship." Extremely straight to the point. Then I go on about how HUH THAT'S WEIRD, AIN'T IT? Truly some classic exposition intro paragraph shit.

17. Talk about the fic’s ending. Why did you end it where you did?

god, thanks for following up with this from the first question. Because, like, so while I'm not scared of writing intros, I am often at my wit's end with endings, lol. With forfeit, I knew I wanted it to be a mutual break up fic, and Shim understanding the hows and whys of it. And I'm always thinking about how guardians are immortal and how it affects romantic relationships (falling outs/changing feelings), and both Shin and Drifter have lived for hundreds of years. These are guys that know how to break up, I bet, LMAO.

(Also I read your old comment on it and you've hit the nail on the head. It's less about yearning, more about knowing how things are. Again, with the immortality and just understanding that people can phase in and out of each others' lives.)

25. Share your favorite line

I have two:

Shin’s existence has only ever revolved around Palamon, Dwindler’s Ridge, and a circling ship made of bones. Drifter’s stretches beyond universes, tied to more than anyone knows. All the legends and secrets of the Renegade Hunter can’t compare.

and

Shin’s long stopped believing in things like Chosen Ones, but he’s always had a weakness for romanticism. It puts him in a complicated spot. He looks at Drifter and thinks — harbinger.

Brother, when it comes to Destiny, I fucking love writing lines about destiny(!!) and fate and cosmic forces. I go nuts. I love the combination of sci-fi and the implication of higher, uncontrollable forces. The contrast!!! And when it comes to Shin's POV, I treat it like it's an incredibly horny thing. And it is. To me. And speaking on contrasts, I think those two lines are pretty much the thesis of why I think Shin is in love with Drifter, or at least the idea of him, as a person and working clog in the universe. I bet shin likes to feel small sometimes, LOL.

25. How did you decide what character(s) would narrate the fic?

BASIA I'M PRETTY SURE WITH THE COMBO OF BOTH FICS YOU KNOW I DON'T ACTUALLY DECIDE ON WHICH POV TO WRITE FROM I SIMPLY WRITE TWO DIFFERENT FICS OF THE SAME PREMISE.

On a more serious note, I choose which POV gives me the most drama and fun. Though usually when I come up with a fic I have a line in my mind with a specific perspective it's from. For BO, I really wanted Drifter's POV on seeing Shin be seduced by a hologram. and also Shin being covered with fake drifter gore. For DO, it was obvious I wanted to do something from Shin's POV on the matter, haha.

[frothlad]

3600 words of profane exegesis below the cut.

Gonzalez v Trevino, retaliatory arrest

The opinion was issued "per curiam", meaning for the whole court, rather than being attributed to a single justice. That is historically meaning that the result is uncontroversial and clear and the court wants to speak with one voice.

Ha, HA HA ha ha

Not since Bush v. Gore it doesn't.

Anyway, Gonzalez was involved in city politics and got afoul of the city manager. She got a recall petition going. It got heated. At the end of one city council meeting, she (accidentally, probably) grabbed the petition as part of getting her shit together to leave. She was arrested, some time later, on the grounds of having intentionally removed a government record. The details are extremely shenanigans-y, but OK, whatever. The charge was dropped. She sued for retaliatory arrest.

Under precedent, you can't do that if there was probable cause for the arrest, and there probably was probable cause. But there's a "Nieves" case that provides an escape clause -- if you can show that if cops have probable cause but don't arrest most people in your circumstances, you can sue for retaliatory arrest even in the face of probable cause. Gonzalez showed that everybody arrested for her crime was arrested for wildly different stuff (mostly bogus ID cards). The Fifth Circuit said, no, you have to show that people who did exactly what you did weren't arrested.

Per curiam, five pages, the Court holds that that is too narrow, that Gonzalez's evidence is appropriate. Doesn't actually decide the case, but y'know, Rule of Continued Employment of Appellate Lawyers.

The real news is the goddamn extras. This is per curiam, so everyone has to show their asses.

Alito concurs, 16 pages because like he's got anything better to do. Gonzalez had a wacko second theory which I won't get into, and he spends some time whacking it on the head, but mostly he just wants to say Nieves is narrow and this isn't changing that.

Kavanaugh concurs, 2 pages, and he's dumb. He says this isn't a Nieves case, this is a mens rea case and Gonzalez conceded (unwisely) mens rea, and so the case should have been DIGged, but it wasn't and the per curiam opinion doesn't do any harm so fine. This is the fucking epitome of mediocre white man talking. I will 100% give you, the mens rea argument is half interesting, but the fact that no one else in the case is talking about it should give you a clue that it's not appropriate to the case at the bar.

Jackson concurs with Sotomayor, 2 pages, with a clapback at Alito and a suggestion that the acceptable evidence for a Nieves claim are even wider.

Thomas dissenting, 4 pages, he thinks the Nieves exception is moose poots and should be dropped, with his usual citation to imagined legal history where it was clear that any probable cause always defeats retaliatory arrest. SO UNIQUE YOU GUYS.

Moore v. US, taxation

Rich people hate taxation, and there are think tanks dedicated to making bullshit cases up in order to challenge laws that right wing culture warriors would like to get rid of. In this case, the Alliance Defending Freedom (who have several bullshit cases in their past and present, like both the mifepristone and EMTALA cases as well as the gay wedding website case). They have a history of making up shit; in this case, they lie to the court about how much the Moores invested, and their level of control and involvement in the company.

To a fair degree, it doesn't matter that this case is about a Trump-era tax on unrealized overseas profits; what this case is really about is an attempt to get it on record that wealth taxes as proposed by progressives like Warren and Sanders are unconstitutional. The constitution law on taxes has a long history and some fairly crucial terms of art that are not interesting enough to make up inventive profanity for, so I will merely say that the dispute is, more or less, whether it can be a "tax on incomes, from whatever source derived" if the income is imputed to you by tax accounting rather than you actually getting a check.

If you are familiar with business accounting, you know that you can book income as a credit if you've merely taken steps to secure the income, like sending an invoice. I don't understand this, but there are many, many things I do not understand about business accounting. But you can draw a direct line from that sort of thing to taxing income that is merely imputed, not actually in your possession.

The claim by the phony-baloney lawyers in the phony-baloney case is that the Moore's share of the profits of a foreign company aren't income because they weren't disbursed. Congress's law clearly says they are. Is Congress's law constitutional?

The answer is yes. Congress has been doing this sort of thing for a gazillion years (e.g. taxing shareholders and partners on business profits not disbursed), so there you go.

Kavanaugh for five (Roberts and the libs), Jackson concurring; Barrett for Alito concurring; Thomas for Gorsuch dissenting.

Kavanaugh 24 pages on the history of doing this sort of thing, but also plenty of caveats that they're not passing judgment on the wealth tax, whether income has to be realized by someone somewhere in order to be imputed to someone (e.g. pre-taxing capital gains before you actually sell, i.e. a wealth tax), etc.

Jackson writes -- she's making kind of a theme of this to be honest -- that it's not the job of the courts to second-guess policy decisions of Congress, and taxation is almost a plenary (unbound) power of Congress, so y'know, back off, this ain't our job.

Barrett thinks Kavanaugh's opinion is wrong in every jot and tittle, reads all the precedents incorrectly, and would cabin the US's taxation authority much more strongly (including requirements that income be realized), but ultimately agrees with the outcome because … the Moores conceded that the tax is similar to a tax they conceded was constitutional and nobody briefed seriously that it wasn't, so they lose? That's pretty bogus there, Ofmitch.

Thomas of course thinks that anything that the US Chamber of Commerce doesn't like is unconstitutional. He would hold that realization of income is a constitutional requirement and that the Moores did not realize any income.

Note: There are at least four votes that realization is a requirement for an income tax, probably six, so a wealth tax that doesn't jump through some hopes IS going to lose if it gets passed when it gets to the court. Since the historical process that could result in a wealth tax will also result in a swing of at least two justices to the anti-plutocrat side, we don't have to worry about that scenario yet.

Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, malicious prosecution

Napoleon cops arrested Chiaverini on fencing crimes. Charges were dropped. He sued for malicious prosecution. The courts below concluded that there was probable cause to arrest him on some of the charges, and therefore the malicious prosecution failed completely.

The Court holds that the Sixth Circuit's categorical rule is wrong -- a malicious prosecution claim is not per se doomed if any of the charges is valid. But of course they don't hold that Chiaverini's claim is good. No, they say "the parties and [the US as amicus curiae] have three different views of how [to analyze the rest of the case] when a valid charge is also in the picture. But this issue is not properly before the Court, so the Sixth Circuit should address it on remand."

The Rule of Continued Appellate Lawyer Employment, again.

Kagan for the liberals and non-BTA; Thomas with Alito dissenting; Gorsuch dissenting.

Kagan is very short and sweet, 8 pages. Even the Explainer can't spin a case where everyone agrees into a long dissertation.

Thomas, of course, would blow up precedent (that malicious prosecution is understood as a claim under the Fourth Amendment). Of COURSE HE WOULD. This is why he is the centerpiece of the bomb-throwing anarchist wing.

Gorsuch would also blow up precedent, but by using a slightly different formula for the bomb.

Diaz v. United States, Rule of Fuck That Guy

Diaz was stopped at the border; her vehicle was searched and found to contain a fricking mule load of meth. She was charged in a way that requires the government to prove that she "knowingly" transported drugs.

She claimed not to know about the drugs.

Under federal rules of criminal procedure, expert witnesses may not testify as to the state of mind of the defendant. The US's rebuttal expert witness testified that "most couriers know they are transporting drugs". Diaz appealed, continuing to try to get the expert witness excluded under the state of mind clause.

Held: Fuck that (in this case) girl.

To quote Ken "Popehat" White: "Look he didn’t testify that ALL Belgians is criminals. He just said that MOST Belgians is criminals. So it’s not, whatayacallit, discriminatory.”

That pretty much covers it.

Thomas (of course) for Hard Time Alito, Umpire John, Beer Me, the Professor No Not That One The Crazy One, and for some goddamn reason, Jackson; Jackson concurrence which better be one page, 48 pt font "i'm being extorted"; Gorsuch for the Best Justice and the Professor No Not the Crazy One The Other One.

Thomas relies on "most" not being "all" so it's not formally a violation.

How the fuck is "most drug mules know they're mules" probative of any fucking thing at all? What the actual fuck. Get this shit out of the rules. You just better fucking hope I'm never put in charge of shit, because THERE WILL BE CHANGES. I may complain about the BTA wing of the Court, but they ain't shit compared to what I would do.

Jackson's quisling fucking concurrence leans solely on "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander". Like a fucking public defender is going to have an expert to duel with the feds. Judges don't even let fucking defense present evidence that discredited forensic analysis is discredited. Budgets don't exist to let capital defendants hire investigators. What the fuck does Jackson think is going to fucking happen if she points out "if the prosecution can say that some cows fart, the defense can say that some pigs jump over the moon"?

I disagree with her decision-making process is what I'm saying.

The dissent mock mind-reading experts and points out that this is an enormous fucking win for the government.

Hey, you know what? Fuck the government, and fuck DHS, DEA, and ICE specifically.

Texas v New Mexico and Colorado, water rights

I will repeat my rubric: State versus state cases west of the Mississippi are always about water rights. State versus state cases east of the Mississippi are about half about water rights and half about Revolution-era boundaries.

Texas wants more water; Texas and New Mexico have reached an agreement and would like the case to go away now. But the US intervened, because it's involved because it operates one of the water departments under dispute, and it thinks the Texas-New Mexico agreement is Carlsbad gold*.

Held: The case continues. Of course it does. The Court is still dealing with 80-year-old water rights cases, this one isn't even a decade old, what the fuck do you think.

Jackson for five; Gorsuch for Thomas, Alito, Barrett dissenting.

I refuse to read any of this any further.

*bat guano. If you expected decorum or maturity, what the fuck do you think you're reading?

State Department v. Munoz, immigration

Guess the result, without even me telling you anything further.

Munoz, a citizen, would like her El Salvadorian husband to be able to return to her in the United States. The consulate in San Salvador denied his application for a visa, with a vague reference to "reasonable ground to believe that entry would be in pursuit of unlawful activity".

Is Munoz entitled to a reason? Does she have any sort of right that the government is bound to respect regarding her husband?

Hah! No, and fuck no!

Have you not learned ANYTHING about US immigration? It's there to keep people like Munoz's husband out. That's all it's for, that's all it does, and thinking that you have any right or freedom or liberty or protected interest is a deep fucking laugh in CIS land.

Barrett for five, Gorsuch separate concurrence; Sotomayor for the three libs dissenting.

Gorsuch would dismiss the case, because the feds provided some idea of the reason why Munoz's husband was denied entry.

Sotomayor cites to Dobbs ON PAGE TWO. ohmigod I love this woman. She is slamming this shit back in their face every time she can. Here, she points out that Dobbs explicitly declaimed that undoing the right to abortion undermined no other rights such as "the right to marry" and "the right to reside with relatives" and yet HERE THEY FUCKING ARE doing exactly that. She is a fiery knight and I want her digitized so she can serve on the Court forever. Anyway, like Gorsuch, she says that the Court didn't need to decide that Munoz has no protected liberty interest in, y'know, her husband.

Erlinger v US, Armed Career Criminal Act sentence enhancement redux all over again

You know, if Congress did its fucking job, we wouldn't have these cases every other term.

The fun part of this case is that the US agrees with Erlinger, so the Court appointed an amicus to defend the lower court judgment.

The exact path that led us to this case is entertainingly twisty, but as it comes to us, the issue is whether a string of crimes Erlinger committed a long time ago were "different occasions" or part of one long bender. If they were different occasions, then his sentence in his "felon in possession" conviction would be godawful long instead of merely cruelly long.

The Court does not decide that. Of course they don't, pay attention.

Instead, the Court holds that, based on the salutary line of sentencing cases starting with Apprendi, any fact that increases a sentence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. So a jury has to decide whether Erlinger gets an extra fifteen years on his sentence for having a gun because a gazillion years ago he had a days-long bender that involved "different occasions" or whether his days-long bender was one occasion.

This takes a total of 84 pages, if you care.

Gorsuch for a mixed group of six: Umpire John, SO UNIQUE YOU GUYS, the best justice of all, the Explainer, and the Crazy Professor. Umpie and Uniquey have concurrences. Kavanaugh dissents with Alito, and with Jackson except for part III. Jackson dissent. Jackson better the fuck not be writing against the Apprendi line of cases or Ima be disappoint.

Roberts would hold that the error is subject to harmless error review; this is, of course, an invocation of the Rule of Fuck That Guy.

Thomas calls out a specific precedent that allows a judge to find the fact of a prior conviction without requiring it to be presented to a jury; he would blow that case up. I am a little surprised, but hey, any opportunity to overturn a precedent.

Kavanaugh would hold that if a judge can find the fact of a previous conviction, they can also find the fact of same-or-different occasions. Part III is about harmless error, so that's where Jackson would disagree.

Jackson has the longest goddamn opinion at 29 pages. What the fuck is she on about?

OH MY FUCKING GOD SHE THINKS APPRENDI WAS WRONGLY DECIDED. That's it, the bloom is off the rose of this fucking relationship. What the hell, Jackson. Am disappoint.

Smith v. Arizona, expert testimony, confrontation clause

Smith had a shitton of something that was probably drugs. The lab analyzed them and said, yeah, this is a shitton of drugs. BUT the technician who did the tests left the lab and so wasn't available to testify. So the lab sent somebody to read her reports and offer "independent opinion" about the tests.

The Court previously said: a) The confrontation clause means that the defense has to be able to cross-examine the analysts who do tests (Melendez-Diaz) b) the confrontation clause means that you can't just substitute another analyst (Bullcoming) c) if you bring on another analyst to quote the analysis and then offer an "independent opinion" then flibberty flop wheep whop banana peel Gros-Michel hinkaboo (Williams)

That is, the Court's opinion in Williams was fractured. It mostly held that quoting the analysis was testimonial implicating the confrontation clause but it also held that Rule of Fuck That Guy, Williams loses on other grounds.

So THIS case gives them a fair chance to redo the Williams case, and this time, it's not gibberish.

(Note to self: See if you can find if you reviewed the Williams case when it happened. How consistent am I?)

Anyway, yes, quoting the analysis is factual and implicates the Confrontation Clause.

Kagan for the other 2 libs plus Kavanaugh and Barrett in total and Thomas and Gorsuch for I, II, and IV. Thomas and Gorsuch both have separate concurrences. Alito concurs in the judgement with Roberts. So this still pretty fractured but there's a clear majority for the result and unanimous for the outcome; Smith wins.

Thomas skips section III for essentially weird Thomas reasons (he'd limit "testimonial" to only that which was historically testimonial, like an affidavit). Gorsuch also disagrees with III's guidance on whether the reports were "testimonial" -- there are certain magic words in use here, like "testimonial" and "offered for truth" and so on, and they don't have any rational definition, they're magic words, so don't sweat it if you don't see the difference -- so he writes some of his own gibberish. If you're keeping track, that's three separate opinions about evaluating "testimonial", so it's fractured.

Alito's concurring in the judgment starts by calling the Court's main opinion extremely stupid ("a needless, unwarranted, and crippling wound"). He agrees with the Court's result largely by looking through all the way down to the analyst's actual testimony and agreeing that it was (essentially) hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

Finally

United States v. Rahimi, gun rights

Rahimi is a shithead who beats his loved ones (he has a domestic violence restraining order). Under federal law, he can't have a bang-bang on the reasonable grounds that assholes who beat their intimate partners who have bang-bangs regularly end up bang-banging their intimate partners to death. But people who worship at the altar of the bang-bangs think that nobody should ever not have a bang-bang, so lawsuit.

PROFANE AGGRAVATION, I'm tired of the gun worshippers. I'd like people to stop getting fucking shot to death, please.

This case was complicated by the Supreme Court's extremely stupid decision in Bruen (by fucking Thomas) that gun control laws must have exact analogues in early US history. Please go read actual stories about how stupid that decision was and how much shit the lower courts have had to deal with in its aftermath.

That is, since there wasn't any such thing as "domestic violence" in the early US, there's no such thing as a law that an asshole like that can't have a gun. Under Bruen, Rahimi has to get his bang-bang.

So the Court takes the ball away from Thomas and says, we're not fucking assholes, everybody stop being such stupid idiots, "when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment".

Bruen is rewritten to require "historical analogue" rather than "historical twin" for gun regulation.

Roberts for 8; Sotomayor for Kagan concurrence; Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson individual concurrences; SO UNIQUE YOU GUYS dissenting.

Hey, Thomas: Fuck you. F U C K Y O U. And your motor home, I hope you shoot a hole in the fuel tank and it burns to a shell.

Anyway, Roberts does a credible institutional job of pretending that he's not backing the hell away from Bruen as hard as he can while still ignoring all of Bruen's functional parts.

Sotomayor hits the nail right on the head: "the Court’s interpretation [of Bruen] permits a historical inquiry calibrated to reveal something useful and transferable to the present day, while the dissent would make the historical inquiry so exacting as to be useless."

Gorsuch defends Bruen as doctrinaire originalism, and Rahimi's case fails not because he's wrong but because it was a "facial" challenge (no possible constitutional use) rather than an "as-applied" challenge (unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff). He ain't redeemed, he's still an originalist stooge.

Kavanaugh writes a 24-page law journal article "to review the proper roles of text, history, and precedent in constitutional interpretation". Yeah, it doesn't count if the only journal that'll publish you is the one you control, tool.

Barrett spends five pages making a subtler point clearer than K does in 24, discussing originalism and balancing generalization and specificity.

Jackson points out that lower courts' problem applying Bruen is the Supreme Court's problem for making such a decision, not the lower courts' problem.

Thomas would apply Bruen with fidelity, requiring an identical regulation to be valid. No one agrees with him here and they're all asking themselves why they let him take Bruen in the first place.

[000life-is-meaningless000]

The reason why I'm showing you a decomposing body is because I wanted to make an example of all the Greatness of life.

He probably could have been one of the greatest athletes nobody gives a shit there's no proof of how great it is and even if you got it on camera there's always going to be somebody better the moment and he is in a time he's in his prime he is so great they will quickly be someone they replace him so all his effort was in vain.

It could have been one of the greatest gamers to ever fucking live who fucking knows who fucking cares it's a video game on top of the fact it doesn't fucking matter What he did in this fucking life He's a Good Example for all of us for all life.

Have you ever seen yourself play a video game 10 years ago have you seen extremely old game footage ?

Have you seen extremely old game footage of you being super great super awesome laughing your ass off of extremely old footage of you giving your best into a fucking virtual reality into a virtual arena the way you got some awesome ass kills or some fucking score the capture the flag or what the fuck ever.

YOU SEE HOW MUCH TIME YOU WASTED AND THE EXCUSE OF YOU'RE HAVING FUN IT'S, BULLSHIT

He's a Good example of all of us that is no matter what You do you're still going to fucking, Die !

No one knows who he is no one knows what his life was like no one has a fucking clue with history

And, in the Retrospect just like all of us it doesn't Fucking Matter

Is it this fucking pose is a Really Good Example, I just how fucking Stupid, Purposeless and Meaningless Being Alive . . .

This is also a good example of proving how achievements and progress are literally both fucking perceptions there is no such thing as progress quite literally saying that progress is a fucking illusion what is progress to one people is not progress to another

Or a different people or even aliens can see that you're going backwards progress is a fucking illusion achievements don't really exist

They don't Exist at all.

. . .

For you and achievement will be building a building for achievement for a tiger it be getting a Kill.

The tiger can run through the building and not understand it was a massive achievement to the tiger is just a building or matter of fact it is a physical place is going through it extremely alien confusing cuz the tiger can't understand human tiger doesn't understand building tiger doesn't understand how it came to be tiger can't understand the whole fucking thing and the human can walk around the tiger kill and not understand that was a Achievement !

Now both the tiger and the workers are both dead

And it doesn't matter who built the building because the bank knocked it down the bank sold the building knocked it down and moved on the something else what you do in your life doesn't fucking Matter.

. . .

Made a billion dollars this is still you, are you king or queen of the world this is still you, were you the most popular person in the world we then know the US celebrity it doesn't matter everything we all everything we do in our lives it's erased by time or hits you get destroyed by time our life is destroyed by time people we care about get destroyed by time proof of our existence gets destroyed by time and eventually just like this fucking example we get destroyed by time !

It doesn't matter what you do in your life your actions Severely, Do. Not. Matter !

[neon-green-reagent]

Ranked: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

So in all my franchise devouring, this is definitely one of THE most disappointing series I've covered. To be fair, nothing can touch what watching all the Paranormal Activity movies did to me, and there is more to love here, but this is going to be kinda rough all the same.

Texas Chainsaw 3D : So at bare minimum, most of the movies are genuinely well-made and look good. NOT THIS ONE. This was the cheesiest and most sellout, oddly enough, that the series ever gets. Imagine if TCM was the Friday the 13th 2009 remake with less charm. Now that's some stinky shit right there. The concept is interesting, a long lost Sawyer rediscovering her roots and meeting Leatherface, but the execution is downright dumb. It makes it so there are no heroes and no villains and everyone's just a gray lump. A notion that a movie with better production values maybe could handle. But that ain't this. Oh, and Leatherface looked like total shit, which is the only time I can honestly say that of this series. Even the bad entries get that basic part right.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) : What was I just saying about no heroes, no villains, just gray blobs that get turned into tomato bisk? Yeah, that. I don't quite know what the point is of making a film with intensely politically charged talking points and making every character be in the wrong, but I can tell you what it makes. A MESS. Where if you root for someone, chances are they'll do something awful, stupid, backwards, or go against their own principles at some point. This is probably the goriest entry, but who gives a damn? Gore is supposed to serve a story or characters (or ideally both) that you care about. Without that, it's corn syrup.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning : So... this is a prequel to the 2003 remake. About a quarter of the way through, I found myself going, wait. I thought they said in the previous movie this is the first time anyone ever made it out alive to report the murders... YEP. A prequel where it was preordained there will be no survivors. So they made sure to make everyone very thinly written so you wouldn't be too worried about that. The main thumbs up I have here is that it's one of my favorite Leatherface designs of the entire series. Otherwise, it's easily skipped.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation : The reputation this movie has is a bit off in my opinion. It's starting to get "so bad, it's good" cred. Yes, there are things about it that I would say fit that description. Particularly Matthew McConaughey's performance. All the over-the-top acting in general. But at the end of the day, the movie plays all of its extremely weird gags very straight. So the tone is dead serious while we introduce such non-TCM concepts as the illuminati. And it turns out, no, this isn't a comedy. The cocreator of the entire franchise was absolutely sincere. It shows, and it really brings the fun way down. It's ridiculous and way out in left field, but it doesn't mean for you to laugh. Yikes.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) : We're finally in watchable territory. And yet when I say that... The last half hour just becomes what it always is for these movies. A girl screaming non-stop while chased or tortured, and after several rounds of that, you start to check out. I've also never seen a final girl fuck up her own escape as much as this one does. Also, and this goes for TCM: The Beginning too, R. Lee Ermey is one of the most one-note, overrated actors I've ever seen, and his presence here is not helpful in making me enjoy the film. Otherwise, this is serviceable if TCM is your thing.

Leatherface (2017) : Of the later sequels/remakes/prequels, this is pretty fun. Imagine, a TCM movie having fun with the premise. Trying something different. With an origin story that wants you to guess which character will be our big ole chainsaw boy. While him turning out to be the least likely suspect might put some people off, I thought the transformation was pretty dang cool. There's a lot of strong acting going on here from Lili Taylor and Stephen Dorff. The absolutely wild girl with the burn scars was a welcome addition to rather a lot of nutty characters, so it's a real feat she managed to make herself stand out. Overall, a stronger film than I could have hoped for that late in the game.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (OG) : WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT NUMBER ONE!? I mean, it's not. Not for me. I find this movie to be a pretty difficult sit. There are a lot of tiresome and forgettable characters. Our villains are loud and annoying. But the grit this was filmed with, the determination to get it made, the messages that lie underneath, and the character of Leatherface all shine through. It's an important film that ushered in a new era of horror, so while I don't find it that watchable, I deeply respect it.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 : This is the movie The Next Generation wishes it was. Tobe Hooper decided he could never follow the first film, so he decided to make a parody of his own work. Genius. It's hilarious, disgusting, lurid, wild, and extremely fitting with the decade it was made in. Stretch is by far my favorite final girl in the series. Dennis Hopper knew exactly what movie he was in. And the soundtrack is great, too.

Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 : Sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry. But I love this one best. You've got Ken Foree kicking ass. You have Viggo Mortensen serving cunt. The Sawyer family actually manages to feel like a loving and supportive family in a twisted way, which is a trope I love. They realized they can't up the ante when Hooper has already set the bar so high, so they don't try. They make ridiculous fights, silly dialogue, and have fun. Fun is always the biggest component for me as to whether or not a film will be a winner. So uh... winner winner, chicken dinner?

Thus my journey ends. I want to add that aside from that dead last entry, even when I didn't love whatever movie I happened to be watching, they did right by Leatherface. He's one of those Jason-y slashers that you want to hug, because he probably deserves better than being used like an attack dog by his own family. I always enjoyed watching him, and every actor brought a different physicality and presence. So, no, I didn't hate every second. And if Leatherface seems intriguing to you as a character, you'd definitely get something out of going over this franchise, too.

[boyswanna-be-her]

what are the things you look for / notice in your favourite horror films?

I've been ruminating on this for ten days and I'm still no closer to having perfect answers, so here goes nothing.

The fastest surefire way to make me ADORE a horror movie is to actually freak me out. Now, that bar has clearly risen over the years. When I saw "Blair Witch Project" and "The Ring," they both scared the living daylights out of me and REALLY got under my skin, but with all the horror I've watched since, I doubt I'd have the same response.

At the same time, even if I were exposed to those two today, I would love them without them scaring me, and I think that's what I want to dig more into.

I love Blair Witch because the actors are goofy and fun and feel so real (which, I mean, it's mostly improvised so) as people. I love it because it has a cohesive style, because it has moments of genuine interaction, because it riffs on the ancient fears that we all have when we're out in nature after dark, alone.

I love The Ring because the script is immaculate--spare and sparse and often just as bleak as the color palette used in the film. I love the visuals and how you can feel the cold and damp in your bones. The effects are gross and good. The actors are rigid, almost the opposite of Blair Witch Project in that they are so scripted that they feel much more like Movie Characters than Mike The Sound Guy I Met In Class.

And despite the fact that they're very different, I think the places where they intersect really show what I look for and notice in my favorite horror films--your original question. I notice whatever the film has going for it, truly. I am a kind, forgiving horror viewer if your movie has really ANY sort of point of view--be that a cohesive visual language, characters that are compelling on several levels, or be it a general theme/subgenre that the movie leans into, like mean and nasty brutality just for the sake of it or balls-to-the-wall gore.

If I don't know anything about a movie, but I'm thinking about streaming it, I fast forward to 25 minutes in. By 25 minutes, I need the movie to have established SOMETHING, and it's a pretty quick read. If I click forward and the acting is garbo or the production is way too ugly to look at or the character interactions have no tension... I'm not wasting my time.

And although there are some tropes I like more than others, I'll give anything a try because there are endless ways to do horror that's appealing to me. It's how I can love stuff that's SO unreal like "Mandy" or "Rosemary's Baby" as well as the mumblecore stuff like "Creep" and "Dashcam" and the mean shit like "Climax" and "Titane" and "Martyrs" and even the goofy stuff like "Psycho Goreman" and "Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things." Why I can watch "Nope" a dozen times because it's a masterpiece, and also "Spree" a dozen times because it's so, so gleefully stupid.

I think a mistake I made for a long time was searching for stuff to scare me because eventually it's just... not happening. You can't keep chasing that dragon because you'll just stop being scared by movies and you won't enjoy anything. Lean into bad movies, explore things that you don't think will scare you (not that you asked for my advice). It's amazing the things that you don't think will get to you that actually DO end up fucking you up so exquisitely.

PS The only movie to truly scare the hell out of me recently was "The Sadness" and not even because of the concept or the gore but THE CRAZY CRAZY STUFF THE PEOPLE SAID TO EACH OTHER. Holy shit it got to me. Just relentlessly the most freaky shit someone could come up with and they're screaming it at you!!!!

[mvrderer]

hi! i was looking 4 a matchup. hope it’s not too much trouble!!

i am a 5’2 transmasc enby gay man that loves horror. i enjoy the rain, i like movies and i love the idea of living in a cabin in the woods. i have curly hair n green eyes!! i am also an entp/infp (i know very different) and an artist.

pros :

loud.

not freaked out easily by gore

independent. can go months without talking to someone

clean freak

confrontational. will ask the server for ketchup if someone else needs it.

stick up for people way too hard

loyal

—

cons :

not good with touch for a long time.

not really okay speaking my mind. very reclusive.

compulsive liar

struggles with social cues and the likes

LOUD.

never stops talking ever

violent outbursts

hold onto grudges like a bitch

don’t like being helped

stubborn

bad self esteem

——

if i am leaving anything out pls lmk ahh so sorry!!

hi!!! you're not leaving anything out dw! its all alright! hope u dont mind im only replying to this :]

and i hope you enjoy this op!

warnings : not proofread, cursing, “sexy” and “hottie” mentioned ironically

i think the best slasher for you is. . .

Billy Loomis !

he loves you for you, no more less.

billy is a romantic, any parts of yourself that you consider a flaw isn't hard for him to adapt to—he'll hype you up and compliment you in a sorta playful way, like “ hey hottie ” or “ damn sexy ” and just does the fuckboy face. though he might struggle a little with understanding why you refuse his help, it hurts to see his love hurt without doing anything! but he'll come to respect your boundaries but still try to cheer you up until you say you need space. he doesn't wanna make things worse!

patient with you. you are his number one priority.

you're not okay with touch? that's alright, he'll find other ways to show his love. you don't want to talk about your problems? that's okay, he'll find a way to cheer both of you up [most likely a movie night], and he'll always ask for permission when he wants to touch you; whether it's looking at you with a questioning look or verbally asking.

shares similar struggles.

he isn't well with social cues either, i headcanon my billy loomis to be autistic, so he'd have a hard time with reading tone. im also pretty sure he'd struggle with saying affectionate things in the first weeks of the relationship, but he really tries to show his love! which is gift giving, the same as you. leaves little notes here and there because he couldn't say it outright. honestly, a little comforted you aren't that verbally affectionate, he doesn't feel alone and awkward.

admires you.

he isn't the exact opposite, but he's always taken aback when you're so brave for others that you care about. when you talk—he'll listen and reply accordingly. need to shittalk someone too? “ fuck yeah babe fuck that person ”

he's very playful with you!

he teases you a lot about your height, yet still talks about what he could do with that advantage for him. teases you until you possibly smack him, he doesn't even care; just says; “ worth it ”

probably goes on killing spree dates with you

not gonna lie, if you find out that he's a serial killer; and still stay with him and accept him—he will absolutely think of this idea. though he'll fret over you constantly because yeah that shits dangerous. he feels bad being absent frequently because of this, even when you reassure him it's alright. so why not just show you what he's been doing and have fun with you? DEFINITELY has selfies with you two and the victim like that dbd animation cutscene

a future with you... sounds nice.

he absolutely loves talking about the future with you, no doubt has he fantasized about it. living in a cabin would probably not be the best idea to him, but he'll come to accept it! the more you talk about that with him, the more he seems more convinced to go with you. what can i say? he's madly in love. you complete him, and he hopes he completes you as well <3

[transsexualhamlet]

16 but I want an essay on it 17 for the hannibal fic ur working on specifically and 27

hellooooo seb seb seb :)

ask game - writing wrapped

16. Who was your favorite character to write?

I think for this year it has to be between Nikolai and Party Poison? Somehow they are both the same brand and fucking opposite characters. I think it mostly comes down to their environment because at their core they have that same balance of hyperactivity, immaturity, and thrill seeking violence seeking bullshit that hides the underbelly of "this 20 something is already so fucking disillusioned with life that they are on the verge of a break with reality". You know. I think if they ever met each other they would give each other the autistic stare, shake hands, and mutually agree to kill each other in the most violent way possible. But at the same time they're so fucking different??? In no world would Nikolai manage to bond positively with a child im sorry it just. I don't think it could happen I think he would want it to happen but he would end up throwing it out the window. Poison didn't Mean to ofc but it just sorta happened. And Poison has an arc where he gets Better as much as it still ends badly and the whole thing is supposed to be at least a little heartwarming and well. Nikolai just gets worse lol

And I'm aware that my entire characterization of Party Poison is pretty much all made up past the bare bones of what danger days gives you and yknow like. Two panels in killjoys. And I guess whatever fanon I can assemble without reading fics and ruining the joy of making shit up myself. But they're literally such a fucking specimen for fucking real I am having so much fun dissecting that thang (Party Poison)

17. What songs did you listen to while writing?

For the Hannibal fic specifically?? Oh that's interesting well you see??? I can't listen to music with words while I'm writing because then I'll just end up writing the lyrics, getting distracted, never getting anything done etc. I listen to weird ass shit with no words. But for the Hannibal fic I've been listening to the song Ares on the Safe In The Steep Cliffs album by Emancipator on fucking repeat it's sooo good and it has kind of the same vibe as the piece as in. A silent calm abandoned place built in the ancient fighting grounds of gods where snow covers ruins and giant columns crumble under their own weight. You know. Normal lofi music.

27. What books, movies, etc helped instruct your storytelling this year?

I mean I generally write fanfic so I mean. The source material is obviously the inspiration for it. But I do have some original stuff and lemme tell you American Psycho really inspired one of my stories for school (does not elaborate in the slightest)

I think the book Leech by Hiron Ennes has inspired me in General. It's literally so fucking good I cannot stand it I ate that thing up like autism favorite food it's so fucking scrumptious (it's 80 percent gothic horror and medical gore 20 percent the most mindbreakingly well built sci fi lore that barely gets elaborated on) But it's. Seriously I cannot recommend it more it's not even about queer people it's about Parasites and Diseases but you can tell it's written by a queer person in the best way I want to eat Hiron's brain

[xeo-kunsatan]

Dissatisfied One shot +14 (Part 2)

Warning

This story contains sexual themes, gore, Domestic abuse themes, Suicide, cigarettes use, bad words and prostitution references. If you are sensitive or underage please don't read this story.

8:00 pm

???: Son.. Son!

Bradley: Father?...

It was one of my father's camera larvae.

Betrayus: can you please come?

Bradley: what's wrong Dad?

Betrayus; We need to talk...

Bradley:.. uh?.. okay.

I escaped from round house as i used to do while Quartzy was following me and keeping me safe to go to the labyrinth and then go through a portal to the netherworld.

Now there, My Father was waiting for me, his Expression was different, he seemed worried..

Betrayus: Son we need to talk...

Bradley: What's it Dad?..

Betrayus: I respect your privacy .. but with all respect.. you have nothing to do selling your body like this, You are still so young And this is absolutely not sexual freedom.

Bradley: I know...I can't avoid it..

Betrayus: first Bradley if you needed money or something, you most told me..

Bradley: But i Don't want to bother you...

Betrayus: *pets him* C'mon my shiny Ruby.. it's not a bother for me, i am your father and it's my duty to give you all you need.

Bradley: If i were death.. my life can be better here.

Betrayus: Honestly yes, but Bradley you have a life and all you can do is enyoi and experiment for more things, suffering is not just the only thing is you will have, more wonderful things would be waiting for you.. i am sure it would be.

Bradley: It's strange to hear you saying this.. even when you want to take over Pac world.

Betrayus: Well yes, but i want you to enjoy it before Id destroy it.

Bradley: Sounds reasonable.

Betrayus: Second and very important, what you are doing for your emptiness is wrong.

Bradley: I know.. i just can't avoid it.. I'm just trying to felt filled but not.. i really don't know what exactly i need to feel less pathetic that i already am.

Betrayus: Selling your body with people who treats you as shit will not fill your emptiness

Bradley: And then.. what the fuck you think i need!?

Betrayus; I don't think so.. Bradley what you need is love and support.. and you know what's another problem.. you already have love and support.. from me, your sister, the netherworld.. and not just the netherworld.. maybe it's incredible but you have it from your cousins, even when they tried to separate you from them and of course from your best friend and your dog, and believe me.. you have enough with it, it's just thing about having time for it.

Bradley: I didn't.. think about it.. I'm sorry Dad

Betrayus: So please Bradley, stop selling your body for Money nor even to make you feel filled, here you have all you need.

Bradley: Okay okay Dad, I will try..but hey a good side is that i have a better way to insult my classmates.

Betrayus: Ok you're a Goddam genius and all me, when i was from your age i used to sleep with others and the next day when they pretended to don't know me i used to make fun of them related with their bodies's features.

Bradley: *chuckles* you can't be serious

Betrayus: Really, It was so funny, even a good way to bother my awful brother.

Bradley: Okey

Betrayus: Remember son if you need something, you can tell and i can give it to you, like new clothing so you can have new clothes and not just your sister's clothing.

Bradley: It's not that bad that i inherited my sister's clothes, they are so cool and warm, she had a really good taste in dressing..

Betrayus: All from me and your mother

Bradley: By the way, where is she this time?

Betrayus: In Pacopolis scaring people with Blinky and Inky, both are having fun, also she took my champagne bottle.

Bradley:*chuckles* oh Man

Betrayus: That's my boy, i love to see you smile, so cheer up son.

Bradley:*sighs and hugs Betrayus* i love you Dad..

Betrayus: and i love you too my son, now go before Stratos founds out that you escaped from home.

Bradley: Alright Dad.

I left the netherworld, Quartzy was waiting for me to then walk together to our way to The round house.

During the way, i found out that Bryan, Lexy's boyfriend was laughing next to a girl while they were cuddling up, i didn't helped to feel mad by it and Quartzy was growling at it too.

Bradley: Hey Smallhead!

Bryan: Huh! Me!?

Erika: Eh?!?

Quartzy: Grrrghh...

Bradley: No.. i was talking with the stone behind you..

Bryan: Alright weirdo...

Erika: Ignore him, sweetie

Bradley: You don't catch the sarcasm, right?

Bryan: Now i see you better, Bradley or i mean..The Play-Bunny, you don't have a Dick to eat or something?

Quartzy: *thinks* "Don't make me bite you"..

Erika:*giggles*

Bradley: Didn't you had a Boyfriend to be loyal?

Erika: Wait what!? You have a Boyfriend?

Bryan: E-Eh!? No i can explain!

Lexy: Explain what!? About you cheated on me!!?

Bryan: Lexy!!? What are you doing here!?

Bradley: How did you found us?

Lexy: Biscocho have lost and me and my father are looking for him...and i heard all..

Erika: Eh!? Bryan you told me that you were straight!

Lexy: You told me that you would never disappoint me!

Bryan: I-I..

Bradley: You disgusted me from the start.. now i know i wasn't wrong..

Bryan: You awful slut! *Starts hitting Bradley*

Lexy: Brad!!

Quartzy: Grhhh!! *Bites Bryan in his leg*

Erika: *attacks Lexy* How dare you to take my man!?

Lexy:*stops her* It was my Boyfriend!

Bradley: *defending himself* I am not guilty about that you cheated on my friend!

Bryan: And you judge me? You are the one who is sleeping with all the boys in maze high

Bradley: At least i don't have a partner to be unloyal..

Bryan: Shut up!! *Throws Bradley against the wall, breaking one of Brad's Badges*

Quartzy: Ok.. so you choose to play dirty..

Bryan: What the-

Bradley's right fist temperature was getting higher without him noticing, he hitted Bryan's face burning his face in the process.

Bryan: AAAAAAAAARGH

Bradley: Holy shit.. your face..

Quartzy: :0..

Lexy: Qué?..

Erika: You monster!! I'm leaving!! I will call the police right now!.

Bryan: Aargh!! Please!! And call the ambulance!! My fucking face!

Mitzy: Oh no you don't..*pushes Erika to the road just in time when a car was passing by to then crash her* you're safe now.

Bryan; Erika!!

Lexy: a la puta madre [Holy Shit] A Talking doll!!?

Mitzy: Hehehe

Bradley: Mitzy what the fuck!!?

Quartzy: *thinks* what a chaos

Blinky: We saved you butt your majesty~

Inky: a "Thank you" would be nice.

Bryan: Ghosts!!! Ugh! It's not over yet!! *Leaves*

Bradley: Guys thank you so much, but Mitzy what the heck!?

Mitzy: Don't worry she would be fine~

Quartzy:*sniffs Erika's corpse* ...

Inky: Be careful your majesty, the cups would pass by

Lexy: Ok Bradley.. thank you for defending me and giving that jerk a lesson but.. *takes Bradley's Hand* Run!!

Bradley: I'll go!..

Quartzy: *follows them*

Lexy, Bradley and Quartzy quickly ran away to meet up with Martín.

Martin: Lexy, you came, i finally found Bizco-.. Bradley? What are you doing here?

Bradley:*panting* long... Story

Quartzy:*thinks* a really burning story...

Lexy: Bizcocho! *Hugs the big fat cat* Dad.. my boyfriend cheated on me.

Martín: He what!!??

Lexy: But don't worry, Bradley gave him a lesson, he deformed his face with a punch.

Quartzy: *thinks* Honestly he looks better with that new face hehehe

Bradley: My fist was in fire Lexy.. i don't know why..

Martín: I think i know, please give me your right hand.

Bradley: B-but.. what if i hurt you sir..

Martín: Dear, I'm a chef, i play and work with fire.

Bradley: if you say so...*gives Martín his hand, his palm was covered with tiny flames*

Martín: Bradley, You have powers.. and *shows him his badge of his same hand* your uncle and Grandmother have hided that from you for really long time.

Bradley: What!?.. what do you mean?

Martin:*takes off that badge from Bradley's right hand* do you know what is this?

Bradley: Uhh.. the Badge my grandmother wanted to not take it off, don't think i didn't had my suspicions about it.

Martín: I'm glad that you already suspect about it, this is a badge used for powered Pacworlders so they cannot have problems with their powers, mostly related with stress, some of this Badges used to be to force that, Pacworlders to hide their powers *turns on the badge again* this shit is easy to repair..

Bradley: Are you telling me that.. all this time i.... Oh no... Oh no...

Lexy: Bradley?...

Quartzy: *Thinks* Not again.. not this..

Bradley: Now it was sense... I finally know why my Grandmother and uncle treated me like that... Now i understand why did they used to separate me from my cousins... It has sense.. I'm an actual monster.

Quartzy:*cuddles with Bradley*.. Hmm *Thinks* No Bradley.. you are not a monster.. quit telling that.

Bradley:*takes his badge and puts on it* I'm sorry Mr Martín.. Lexy..

Lexy: Bradley.. no..

The Round house Limo have arrived

Stratos: There you are!, You will be punished by escaping from home!..

Bradley: ..sorry...

Lexy: No Bradley! Wait!!

Martín: With all respect Mr president you..

Stratos: Nope!..

Quartzy: Grrrghh!! *Attacks Stratos*

Stratos: Argh!!

One of the bodyguards shoots Quartzy to make her leave alone Stratos.

Bradley: Quartzy NO!!!

Bizcocho escapes scared by the shoot

Stratos and his bodyguards take Bradley to the Limo and drived away without.

Martin: Viejo conche su madre... [Bitch]

Lexy: *sees after Quartzy* Oww no.. Bradley...

Quartzy:*moves*

Lexy: Oh shit is alive!!

Martin: *takes off the dart* it's not an actual bullet.. it's a Dart

Quartzy: *thinks* Ok I'm a little unlucky with shootings.

Martín: what a relief she is alive *holds her* let's take care of her while she recovers.

Lexy: Oki Doki.

9:49 pm

Stratos have seended Bradley to the Round house jail as a punishment.

Stratos: You cross the line young man.. I told you million times to don't go outside in the night, anything you want to say?

Bradley: You killed Quartzy..

Stratos: don't avoid my question..

Bradley: You killed my dog..and you left her behind as a trash..

Stratos: I didn't killed her, my bodyguards actually shoot her with a pacifier Dart.

Bradley:*sighs*...

Stratos: You would be here all the night and the rest of the next day..*leaves*

Bradley:*sighs* If you already consider me as a monster.. i would give you a real monster *Takes off his right badge*...

His hand started burning again but not with more strength.

While that Betrayus have watched everything with full of rage.

Betrayus: My Son have finally discovered his powers and a part of the truth.. Dear brother you will pay for this.

[darkromanceblackburn]

Slasher OC: The Hacker

Full Name: Xander Shawn Rivera (Although none knows his real name as his killer persona)

Nickname(s): Xan, Hackerman, The Hacker, Erron, Cyber Killer, Shawty, BlueRain, Blue

Age: 30

Gender: Male

Nationality: American

Place of Birth: New York City, USA

Current Location: New York City

Occupation: As a civilian, he works in the IT department of a company; As his killer persona he is a Dark Web Criminal, Master Hacker, CEO of Online Drug and Weapon Store

Base of operation: New York

Languages: English

Appearance:

Height: 6'3

Weight: 185 lbs

Body Type: Atheltic

Skin Color: Warm Ivory

Hair Color: Black

Hair Style: He has an undercut hairstyle, much longer on the top, with bangs covering sometimes one eye

Eye Color: Smokey grey, giving off eerily serene, sometimes studiously expressionless

Clothing: As his civilian persona, Xander prefers easy clothing that doesn't attract attention, keeping the image of a boring 30s male, he opts for dark jeans, T-shirts with symbols from video games or simple graphic T-shirts, and hoodies in colors of black, dark grey or light grey, dark blue. His shoes of choice are either vans or converse, comfortable and practical. Xander's clothing could be described as nerdy.

As his killer persona, he chooses black clothing or midnight dark blue, black converse, or black high Nikes, a bulletproof vest under his hoodie, utility belt where he has his holster with the bowie knife. He wears a neon blue Purge-like mask to hide his identity, and he upgraded the mask, installing mini-video cameras close to where his eyes are so that he can record any of his murders or information in order to blackmail.

Other features: He has a dragon tattoo on one of his pectorals, a tongue piercing and he has a cock piercing right on the tip also known as Prince Albert piercing, plus his scrotum ring piercing. He also has blue braces. He also has some faint freckless on his nose and around.

Face Claim: Desmond Harrington

Weapons: Bowie Knife, Beretta 92 Gun, Wilson Combat EDC X9

Scent: He wears Dior Men Cologne Sauvage, the fragrance is announced as radically fresh, raw and noble at the same time. Top notes are Calabrian bergamot and Pepper; middle notes are Sichuan Pepper, Lavender, Pink Pepper, Vetiver, Patchouli, Geranium and elemi; base notes are Ambroxan, Cedar and Labdanum. Other notes of his scent would be tabacoo, a sugary energy drink smell.

Favorite Food: McDonalds, Subway and Burritos

Favorite Drink: Energy drinks, especially the Monster Energy Drink ones

Power/Skills:

Great knowledge in IT and hacking

Torture methodology

Driving skills

Stealth/Evasion

Skilled usage of weaponry

Bulletproof outfit

High intelligence

Manipulation

Computer skills

Murderous expertise

Skill in hand-to-hand combat

Knifesmanship

Gunmanship

Psychopathic nature

Fearlessness

Ruthlessness

Airplane Pilot Skills

History/Bio:

The man known as the infamous Hacker was long ago someone completely different.

Xander Shawn Rivera was born into a suburban neighborhood close to New York City, along with his little sister Chloe, their parents being Neil Rivera, their father who worked as a police officer of New York City, and their mother Olivia Rivera working for a company in New York into the logistic department.

Xander had a normal childhood, until when he was 14 when his mother left him, his sister, and his father for a rich man. Neil took care of the two kids, and because his mother left them, Xander started to hold a huge grudge on her, especially that his sister, Chloe told him many times that their mother would come back, and Xander got even more hate on his mother when she wouldn't come to visit them; never present for Chloes birthdays, holidays and such.

In high school, Xander was considered the biggest nerd; awkward and unsure of himself, he was a prime target for the popular kids. He wasn't the strongest in the physical department, being fairly tall for his age and a slender guy, he focused his attention more on learning, especially in the IT, technology, and robotic department of the school.

Being more captured by the cybernetic life, he spends all his free time learning how to hack, getting deeper into the Dark Web. First, he opened an online drug store and in time he started to do trafficking with dangerous weapons too. His father being at work most of the time, he had all the privacy he needed, and none had any suspicions of what he was doing, being seen as the non-interesting guy with social awkward skills.

In the last year of high school, one night while he was working, Xander received a call from the New York Police, telling him how his father was gunned down during an investigation with a drug-dealing gang.

With his father dead and his sister completely devasted, not to mention a plan for what he will do after he finishes high school, Xander came to a blocking point, and his sister left him too, to go live with their mother and her boyfriend, the rich asshole.

Being left all alone, Xander finished high school and took the job position in the USA army in the security and IT department, since all his reviews were exceptional. After a few years of working for the USA army, learning along how to fight, use weapons, and how to fly an airplane, he decided to quit, not satisfied enough with what his line of work offered him. The superiors treated him like shit and he was viewed just as their lap dog.

After he gave up on the army, he got a job at a New York company, but behind the boring nerdy civilian, Xander developed a new persona, that he earned from all around the Dark Web; The Hacker alias Erron.

Continuing with the illegal stores on the dark internet, he also got intrigued by the more horrible parts, like killing, assassins, torture, porn gore, and the list goes on.

Xander understood that there on Dark Web, he had full control of everything, it was his Kingdom and he was the King, he could be whatever he wanted there and he had all the skills and tricks... And his killer persona turned out to be one of the most wanted international criminals in and outside the USA.

Personality:

As his civilian self, Xander is an introvert to say so, not indulging himself too much in social activities, but he still shows high confidence even as his normal persona. He prefers to keep to himself, being the boring and nerdy Xander Shawn Rivera that is pretty much invisible. It's an image he chose to keep in order not to raise any suspicions of who he really is. Despite being a Master in hacking and IT, he doesn't show it when it comes to his civilian line of work. He has a quote that goes like this: 'Never show your true potential just to be a cheap showoff. Wait for the perfect moment to strike.'

As his killer persona, like most murderers in horror movies, he shares their traits. He is sneaky, intelligent, cruel, aggressive, sadistic, destructive, and brutish by nature. He has no morality, his base of operation being on the Deep Web, where he is doing business. He scops up victims in various ways; down from online dating sites, to posing as a simple seller of a car or phone; he knows what to say to find out more about his victims. Once he tracks you down, he will know everything about you; your name, age, address and even hacking your webcam to cyberstalk you, finding the perfect moment to strike.

As the Hacker, he is very confident, playful, manipulative, and always has a plan B up his sleeves, and if plan B doesn't work, well... get ready for plan C.

The biggest trick is that you don't know anything about who the Hacker is, but he knows everything about you. He is the guy that invades your privacy and knows all your secrets, using all the information against his victims or people that dare to get in his way.

The Hacker is unpredictable, ruthless when he has to be, and extremely possessive of what he owns, because he worked hard for it, and this results in another intense trait of his personality; he is a big workaholic, sometimes forgetting to sleep and eat, especially when he has a huge deal to finish.

The Hackers street smarts and charisma is unmatched and he is one of the toughest criminals to ever walk the streets of America and surfing through the dark web. As the Hacker, he finds it much easier to talk, flirt, and get close to women. It's not necessarily that he is self-conscious, because he is not, and he has an explanation for why as his civilian self he avoids getting too close to the dating game.

'I have to be boring and awkward as to not raise suspicions, besides... why would I need a girlfriend to stick her nose into my business and fuck up everything? Pussy I can find and get anytime and anywhere I want. Thank you very much, motherfucker.'

He also shows traits of narcissism or egomania, loving to be complimented for his work and achievements, hen loves to be praised and acknowledges by those around him that he is the best, which clashes when he has to put on the good civilian mask and pretend he doesn't want to gut everyone's necks around him.

A psychopathic madman with a lust for blood and to be the best in everything he does, he can be considered a big perfectionist, but not in all domains. For example, he is a lame cook and always prefers to get take-outs or food that can be heated into the microwave. He doesn't have time to sleep, much less to spend his time at the stove.

Erron is very blunt and to the point in his conversations, and won't hesitate to tell someone how stupid they are. He lacks empathy and he doesn't work like other people; he is very logical and will use his brain/mind more so than his heart.

All in all, both Xander and Erron are one and the same person, switching personalities.

Crimes:

Stalking

Terrorism

Selling illegal weapons and drugs

Torture

Grand Theft Auto

Mutilations

Kidnapping

Snuff Filming

Blackmailing

Drug/Weapon trafficking

Quotes of The Hacker:

'I see you.'

'Lets see who pays the most.'

'I got many things that may interest you. Drugs, Guns, Maybe a young woman. Lets negociate.'

'I am everywhere.'

'Yes. I got your wife. You should have seen her face when I fucked her.'

'You will never win this game.'

'You think you can catch me? The police tried for years. Good luck, pal.'

[m0th-punk]

This is something that's been on my mind for a long time. Long ramble under the cut

TL;DR: Grazer-razor has some of the worst black and white mentality I've ever seen and I can tell he has never critically examined his biases a day in his life.

Because I'm a terrible little gremlin who can't leave well enough alone, I've been reading these posts

Ignoring the absolute stupidity of these statements (I'm pretty sure the lack of rainbow logos is because in many middle eastern countries, homosexuality is a crime and these companies just want to make money. But I'mnot going into the nuances and implications of rainbow capitalism today.), something stood out to me.

Does Grazer... genuinely think nobody has ever criticized the Muslim faith? That we all ignore the homophobia present within the religion just because they're a minority? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen even some of the most staunch leftists criticize things like their horrible treatment of homosexuality or the rampant sexism often sanctioned by radicals. Even other Muslims, especially women and lgbt+ Muslims, have been critical of these things.

It wouldn't shock me if Grazer believedthat anyone who supports Muslims believes they can do no wrong. After all, he thinks any criticism of Christianity is hatred, and dismisses any harmful things Christians do as not being "real" Christianity in a classic case of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Note how he didn't even respond to the first asks comments, just accused them of being me (because obviously any time someone sees his blog it's all my fault /s)

So it seems like in Grazer's mind, there are only two options when it comes to religion: Uncritically praise and defend everything a religion does no matter how heinous it is and justify it because it's done in a God's name, or condemn anyone who practices it as hateful terrorists. Because he doesn't see people doing the former for Christians, he automatically assumes that they're doing the latter, and vice versa for Muslims.

Also note how he gets mad when muslim faith is "respected" (again, homosexuality is criminalized in many of these areas) but then demands a secular children's show cater to his religion for the sake of his precious childhood.

(Also, can we just talk about the absolute fucking cruelty in this answer? There are people out there that had their childhoods ruined by abuse, illness, losing loved ones, homelessness, poverty, bullying, near-death experiences, having their countries torn apart by war, a shitty foster care system, teen pregnancies, and so many other things that can absolutely destroy a life.  Grazer's was ruined by…  *checks notes* a cartoon character supporting gay rights and a drag queen singing a cutesy children's song.  So yeah, if that's the worst part of his childhood he's pretty damn lucky, and the fact that he has the gall to still complain absolutely makes him selfish and ignorant. It's disrespectful, plain and simple, and if he were truly a good Christian he'd have some compassion.)

Okay, so Grazer has some weird "rules for me but not for thee" shit when it comes to religion. This isn't news. Where am I going with this?

Well, turns out he has this opinion about more than just religion. Know how I know this? His response to ESRB ratings and trigger warnings.

So it seems like Grazer sees the ESRB as some sort of moral compass, in a way. Something being rated E or E10 means it's pure and good and wholly unproblematic, while anything higher means it's evil and disgusting and he can't even look at it.

This is further confirmed by this post, where he flat-out states he sees the ESRB as deeming what things are and are not morally acceptable.

Now Grazer, I'm gonna explain this as best as I can, because it seems like you don't quite understand this. Read very carefully.

This is not the purpose of the ESRB rating system.

I repeat, this is NOT the purpose of the ESRB rating system.

The ESRB does not decide on what is and is not morally correct. It simply says "This game contains these topics, and as such is most suitable for people in this age group.". That's it. It's a guideline, not a rule.

Let's take cartoon violence, for instance. It's a very common warning the ESRB puts on games. Almost every game from Mario to Sonic to Crash Bandicoot and even Monster Tale has this warning. These games are all rated E for everyone. Does this mean those games are promoting violence to children, or claiming things like Bowser kidnapping Peach or Pinstripe trying to gun down Crash are perfectly okay and morally correct? Of course not. It's simply saying that these games contain mild, non-graphic violence, but most children should be able to handle seeing it.

On the other side of the coin, let's take a look at the warnings for nudity and sexual themes. Most games that contain these topics are rated T at the lowest and AO at the highest. This obviously isn't saying that nudity and sex are inherently bad or evil. All it's saying is that these topics are best handled by adults (And, regardless of morality, it is illegal to distribute sexual content to minors unless it's meant to be educational, like a health class textbook).

A few extra points:

. Games can be rated different things in different countries. Different countries have different regulations. Do you know why the blood in Danganronpa is pink? It's because in Japan, games with excessive amounts of blood and gore are given a Z rating (Japan's equivalent to an AO rating). They got around this by making the blood pink, securing the game its desired M rating. Meanwhile here in America, Mortal Kombat is allowed to show as many graphic, brutal deaths as it wants and still receive an M rating.

. ESRB ratings are not legally enforceable. I was so convinced as a 16 year old that the employees at gamestop would try to card me or something when I was picking up a copy of Bayonetta, and I was surprised when they simply rang me up in two seconds, no questions asked. It doesn't happen. For fuck's sake, one of the first games I ever played, at the tender age of four, was Soul Edge. A T rated game. The only instance ESRB ratings are legally enforced is in the case of AO ratings, as these games often contain incredibly graphic violenceor sexual content. If this outrage is coming from the idea that certain ratings will keep younger people from playing these games from a legal standpoint, don't worry. A nine year old is not gonna get arrested for playing Among Us. Just don't buy them GTA San Andreas or Leisure Suit Larry and everything will be fine.

. No two consumers are exactly alike. While one 13 year old may be perfectly fine with the jumpscares in Amnesia, another may be too scared to even go near the piano in Super Mario 64. That doesn't mean either of these games is rated incorrectly. The ESRB is there, once again, as a recommendation for the average consumer, and doesn't take individual experience into account. An individual experience is not their responsibility. It's also on parents (or you yourself!) To decide what the consumer can or can't handle.

"But Haley," I hear you say, "What if this piece of media DOES contain something morally bad?"

Well it's simple. You are allowed to like things AND still criticize the bad parts of it.

Hold on now, I'm not telling you that it's perfectly alright to enjoy things like Birth of a Nation or anything like that! Contrary to popular belief, there are some pieces of media that are truly too steeped in hatred and morally reprehensible things to be supported, even through a critical lense. The only merit things like that have is to serve as a warning: This is a terrible thing made for terrible reasons, and we should not allow it to happen again.

But outside of those rare circumstances, it's not so cut and dry.

Let's take a piece of media i actually enjoy, for instance, so you know I'm not a hypocrite: Persona 5.

Persona 5 is easily one of my favorite games in the Persona series. It does a lot of interesting stuff, the artstyle and soundtrack are (in my opinion) the best in the series, and overall it's very enjoyable for me.

But, like anything, it's not perfect. I'm incredibly uncomfortable with the hypocrisy the game has in regards to the sexualization of teenagers. While Kamoshida is rightfully condemned for his sexualization of teenage girls and Ann's persona awakening comes from rejecting this objectification, the game and story undermine it by not only putting Ann in a sexually revealing outfit, but also making light of Ryuji's sexual harassment by adult men (Allegedly Persona 5 Royal tries to fix this by making the men drag enthusiasts who think Ryuji would look good in drag and giving them more sympathetic personalities, but it's still really weird and hypocritical of the game to do this.). The teenage protagonist is also allowed the option to date adult women, including his teacher, and the game rarely if ever touches on the problems with this.

The game's homophobia also left a bad taste in my mouth. Aside from the aforementioned men who sexually harass Ryuji, the only other canon LGBT+ character is a bar owner who is either a drag queen or a trans woman (or both?). Sure, she's portrayed as being kind and protective of the protagonist, but there isn't much room to interact with her or learn more about her. On top of that, not only can the protagonist not romantically pursue his male friends (A feature that even the SECOND persona game had), he's not even allowed to give them gifts or platonically show affection towards them without the dialogue mocking him. The game that allows a teenage boy to date his teacher won't allow him to simply give his male friends a present.

And yet, despite those criticisms, I do still enjoy the game. I don't consider the game irredeemable garbage based on those poorly handled topics alone. And I also understand that for some people, those topics make them so uncomfortable that they don't want to play the game at all, and I completely respect that.

Criticizing the things you enjoy is not only normal, it's oftentimes healthy. Being able to step back and say "I like this thing, but I don't like the bad things it's done. This thing would be better if these issues were fixed." Sure, sometimes some people tend to complain a bit too much about the media they supposedly enjoy, but for the most part being able to acknowledge the bad with the good is a good skill to have.

Oh, wait, all of this means nothing because Grazer thinks that critically enjoying things is nothing more than an excuse to consume media he doesn't personally agree with. Okay then.

So if he can't even realize something as simple as "it's okay to criticize some parts of media that you otherwise enjoy", how can he be expected to look critically at a religion that he's been raised in and around all his life?

Soooo yeah, Grazer has some serious problems with black and white thinking that he refuses to acknowledge, further worsened by the fact that he's practically been brainwashed into believing that Christianity is the ultimate moral compass that everyone should follow. I understand that this tends to be an issue for neurodivergent people, but it's not an excuse for the actions he does that are related to these things (sending death threats to the ESRB, antagonizing others, etc.